Summary
finding "an obvious causal connection" between plaintiff's old low-back injury and his new injury affecting "the same region he previously injured"
Summary of this case from Martinez v. Crosby Dredging, LLCOpinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-0478, SECTION "K" (2)
March 1, 2004
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the Court is defendant Nabors Offshore Corporation's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. No. 51) on the issue of maintenance and cure. Having reviewed the pleadings, memoranda, exhibits, and relevant law, the Court GRANTS defendant's motion as meritorious.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Darrell Weatherford, filed the instant Complaint (Rec. Doc. 1) against Nabors Offshore Company ("Nabors") for injuries to his back suffered while working for Nabors. Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, maintenance and cure benefits for his back injuries. Weatherford's accident occurred on May 28, 2002.
Nabors requires all applicants for employment to complete a medical questionnaire. Plaintiff responded to this questionnaire on August 7, 2001. The questionnaire asked plaintiff whether he had ever suffered any back or neck trouble, whether plaintiff had ever missed work due to injury, and whether plaintiff suffered from any injury or illness not listed. Plaintiff answered each inquiry in the negative by checking off the box marked "no" next to the question. As plaintiff would later admit, these denials were not truthful. See Weatherford deposition at 91.
Prior to applying for employment with Nabors, plaintiff sued a previous employer, Ogden Offshore Food Service ("Ogden"), for back injuries sustained in a work accident. Id. at 29. The Ogden accident resulted in a lower lumbar strain that caused plaintiff to miss approximately one year of work. Id. at 32-33. Plaintiff suffered another lower back injury, a pulled muscle, while employed at Barrios Well Service. Id. at 34. Also, plaintiff suffered two neck injuries prior to joining Nabors staff. The first neck injury resulted from an automobile accident, and required Weatherford to visit the emergency room. Id. at 39-41. The second occurred while working at Saurd, and caused plaintiff to miss roughly two weeks of work. Id. at 35-36. Plaintiff admits that he knew he was lying and deliberately concealing his prior injury record from Nabors. Id. at 91-93. He lied because he was worried that, if he answered truthfully, Nabors would not hire him. Id.
Dr. Robert Davis performed plaintiff's pre-employment medical examination in connection with his application for employment with Nabors. Davis deposition at 9. Dr. Davis' purpose was to ensure that Weatherford was qualified to meet the job description and role he sought to perform for Nabors, one that required heavy lifting. Id. at 6, 8-9. Dr. Davis testified that plaintiff indicated that he had not suffered previous back or neck injuries. Id. at 10. A prior back injury keeping an applicant out of work for a year would be a "huge red flag" and a "significant injury" that would require his further investigation, said Dr. Davis. Id. at 15-16. With a medical history such as plaintiff's, Dr. Davis would have requested an orthopedic and/or neurosurgery evaluation, had he been informed of said history. Id. at 17. Dr. Davis would have also refused to clear plaintiff to perform heavy labor. Id. at 18. Knowledge of plaintiff's medical history, Dr. Davis testified, would have been material to his medical determination of whether Weatherford was qualified for the position he sought. Id. at 30-31.
Plaintiff's misrepresentations to Dr. Davis and Nabors were not isolated instances. Weatherford "denied specifically any prior complaints of low back problems" to Dr. Christopher Cenac in 2002. Cenac deposition at 7. Plaintiff subsequently indicated to Dr. William Kinnard that his history of spinal problems was "negative"-meaning that plaintiff had not experienced prior back problems. Kinnard deposition at 33. Dr. Kinnard testified that there was "no doubt that there was an omission or failure to provide adequate responses to questions providing past history." Id. at 35.
II. ANALYSIS
Nabors moves for Summary Judgment dismissing the maintenance and cure claims of plaintiff, Darrell Weatherford, claiming that plaintiff knowingly concealed pertinent medical information from Nabors in his application for employment. In support of its argument for summary judgment, Nabors cites the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has held that:
where the shipowner requires a seaman to submit to a pre-hiring medical examination or interview and the seaman intentionally misrepresents or conceals material medical facts, the disclosure of which is plainly desired, then he is not entitled to an award of maintenance and cure. Of course, the defense that a seaman knowingly concealed material information will not prevail unless there is a causal link between the pre-existing disability that was concealed and the disability incurred during the voyage.McCorpen v. Central Gulf Steamship Corp., 396 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 894 (1968).
Courts construing McCorpen, have held that to prevail on a summary judgment dismissal of a maintenance and cure claim, an employer must prove: 1) that the plaintiff intentionally misrepresented or concealed medical facts; 2) that the nondisclosed facts were material to the employer's decision to hire the plaintiff; and 3) that a connection exists between the withheld information and the injury complained of in the instant suit. In the Matter of L.S.K. Towing, Inc., 1995 WL 350039 (E.D.La. 1995); Lancaster Towing, Inc. v. Davis, 681 F. Supp. 387, 389 (N.D. Miss. 1988). The Court finds that each McCorpen element is satisfied in the instant matter. Plaintiff Weatherford intentionally withheld material information about prior injuries from defendant Nabors during his pre-employment interview. Those injuries, to plaintiff's back, are causally connected to the injuries alleged in this lawsuit and they would have been material to Nabor's decision to hire Weatherford.
By his own admission, plaintiff intentionally concealed multiple prior injuries from Nabors in hopes of improving his chances of being hired. Weatherford deposition at 92-93. Defendant asked plaintiff, in a pre-employment questionnaire, whether he had ever suffered any past back or neck trouble and whether plaintiff had ever missed any time off of work due to injury, and Weatherford falsely denied both. Thus, plaintiff's conduct clearly satisfies McCorpen's initial requirement of intentional concealment.
The next inquiry is whether the withheld facts were material. A fact is material if it could have altered the employer's hiring decision. Russell v. Seacor Marine, Inc., 2000 WL 1514712, *3+ (E.D.La. 2000) (citing LS.K. Towing, 1995 WL 350039 at *2); Lancaster Towing, 681 F. Supp. at 288. Again, McCorpen is satisfied here. Plaintiff's employment with Nabors imposes strenuous physical activities. Had Dr. Davis been aware of plaintiff's back injuries, he would have ordered further studies. Davis deposition at 17. Indeed, if Dr. Davis had known the extent of plaintiff's medical history relative to these injuries, he would not have cleared him to perform heavy labor. Id. at 18. Therefore, Weatherford's withheld medical information was clearly material.
The final McCorpen prong, causal connection between plaintiff's prior injuries and present ones, is likewise satisfied here. Where plaintiff claims an injury in the exact same area of the back as was previously injured, the causal connection is clear. Guillory v. Northbank Towing Company, 1993 WL 721991, *3 (W.D.La. 1993); see also L.S.K. Towing, 1995 WL 350039, *2 (Where both injuries concerned the same knee, "[T]he causal link seems clear.") Here, plaintiff admitted to intentionally concealing a prior injury to his lower back. Weatherford deposition at 34. Weatherford's instant claims include "sharp, stabbing pain" in his lower back, the same region he previously injured. Id. at 141, 151. Thus, as was the case in L.S.K. Towing, the instant facts establish an obvious causal connection with plaintiff's prior injuries.
Based on the above analysis, the Court is compelled to grant judgment summarily that Weatherford is not entitled to maintenance and cure as a matter of law. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Nabor's Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 51) regarding maintenance and cure is hereby GRANTED.